Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Soil Sample Processing”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Land management effects on wet aggregate stability and carbon content

Land management affects soil structure and many other soil properties and processes. Our objectives were to evaluate soil organic C (SOC), aggregate size distribution, aggregate-associated C, and soil structure as affected by long-term land management and slope. A chronosequence of 38 on-farm sites with low to high (5–18%) slopes was selected to evaluate 5–40 yr of management. The sites were classified as business as usual (BAU) cropland (BAU-Crop), BAU pasture (BAU-Past), newly established conservation reserve program (CRP) areas (CRP-New), and established CRP (CRP-Old). Soil samples were collected from the 0-to-5- and 5-to-15-cm depth increments and processed for soil property measurements including fractionation by wet sieving into five aggregate size classes (>2,000, 1,000–2,000, 500–1,000, 250–500, and 53–250 μm). Within the surface 5 cm, mean weight diameter (MWD) and geometric mean diameter (GMD) were used to characterize soil structural stability. The BAU-Past and CRP-Old sites had 79% more macroaggregates (>2,000, 1,000–2,000, and 500–1,000 μm), 123% higher MWD, 38% higher GMD, and 47% higher SOC than BAU-Crop or CRP-New sites. The 5-to-15-cm depth increment showed a similar but lower magnitude response. Aggregate-associated C was quantified using a constant soil mass that reflected aggregate size distribution to prevent overestimating C content. Lower-slope locations had more SOC, more macroaggregates, more C associated with macroaggregates, and higher GMD and MWD compared with high-slope locations across all management classifications and soil depths. The results support our hypothesis that the high-slop soils may benefits from specific management decisions than the lower-sloping soils as a function of landscape property. We recommend reestablishing grassland on sloping land that is susceptible to excessive soil erosion, although those practices will likely take a long time to restore soil structural stability and SOC content to precultivation levels.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Carbon dioxide (CO2) flux, amplicon sequencing and liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-MS) data for pyrogenic organic matter (PYOM) amended soil incubations in lab, Madison, WI, 2021-22

This dataset comprises soil-pyrogenic organic matter (PyOM) incubation experiments conducted in a laboratory setting. The focus was on measuring carbon dioxide (CO2) flux emitted in the headspace of incubation jars over a one-month period. The aim was to estimate carbon mineralization from two different carbon fractions in PyOM, as well as carbon mineralization from soil organic carbon (SOC). Bacterial and fungal community profiles were tracked at various time points during the incubation to observe changes in the overall community and specific responders to PyOM. LC-MS analysis of soil samples was also performed to monitor changes in the soil's chemical composition.The provided dataset includes processed CO2 flux measurements obtained from the Picarro-multiplexer measurement setup for each sample incubation jar. This data is available in the "CO2Flux.csv" file. Additionally, the dataset includes CO2 flux data partitioned to estimate mean carbon mineralization from the two PyOM carbon fractions, bulk PyOM, and SOC. The cumulative carbon mineralization data is provided in "cml_respired.csv," while the rate of carbon mineralization data is in "rate_respired.csv." The file "cml_respired_lastcyc.csv" contains cumulative carbon mineralization data for the PyOM carbon fractions, bulk PyOM, and SOC throughout the entire incubation period.For the LC-MS analysis, the raw data can be found in the "20220721_NZ_PeakHeights_FinalAnalysis.csv" file, while sample metadata is provided in "20220721_NZpilot_Metadata.csv". Processed LC-MS data is available in the file "20220721_NZ_FINAL_msdat_sub3.csv". Lastly, the dataset includes the relative abundance data for bacterial genera that exhibited a significant positive response to the addition of PyOM produced at 350 degrees Celsius, which can be found in "resp_genera_350.csv".

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Microbial Ecology of Permafrost Soils: Populations, Processes, and Perspectives

Permafrost microbial research has flourished in the past decades, due in part to improvements in sampling and molecular techniques, but also the increased focus on the permafrost greenhouse gas feedback to climate change and other ecological processes in high latitude and alpine permafrost soils. Permafrost microorganisms are adapted to these extreme environments and remain active at low temperatures and when resources are limited. They are also an important component of global elemental cycles as they regulate organic matter turnover and greenhouse gas production, particularly as permafrost thaws. Here we review the permafrost microbiology literature coupled with an exploration of its historical aspects, with a particular focus on a new understanding advanced by molecular biology techniques. We further identify knowledge gaps and ways forward to improve our understanding of microbial contributions to ecosystem biogeochemistry of permafrost-affected systems.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Soil Sample Workplan in Support of the Site 300 Explosives Waste Treatment Facility Ecological Risk Assessment Pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (Part V, Special Condition #14 a-f)

The Department of Toxic Substances Control issued the Final Hazardous Waste Facility Permit to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Site 300 in 2017. As part of the continual process to ensure waste treatment emissions are not impacting ecological receptors, LLNL analyzed soil samples in the vicinity of the Explosive Waste Treatment Facility (EWTF) Burn Units (i.e., Burn Cage and Burn Pan) and the Detonation Pad. Soil samples were analyzed by EPA Solid Waste 846 Methods for furans, explosives, metals, and semi-volatile compounds. In all samples, furans, explosives, and semi-volatile organic compounds were not detected. Metals were detected at concentrations below background levels. This soil sample plan will sample the same four downwind areas of the Burn Units and the same downwind areas of the Detonation, as well as including four new sample locations. The four new locations will be located to the northeast and southwest of the Burn Units and Detonation (as shown in Figure 3). The constituents to be analyzed are in Tables 7 and 8. Perchlorate was not identified as a constituent of concern in the 2007 Soil Sampling Plan. However, for this plan, all soil samples will be analyzed for perchlorate. Nitrate and all CAM17 metals have been added to the sampling plan to comply with DTSC comments received in correspondence dated June 4, 2021. After completion of the sampling event, a soil sample report will be submitted to DTSC in accordance with requirements specified in the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Conditions 16 a-f. This proposed soil sampling plan will be fully implemented no later than one year after receiving DTSC approval, in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Condition 15.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗
DOE OSTI2020

Soil Sample Plan in Support of the Site 300 Explosives Waste Treatment Facility Ecological Risk Assessment Pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Condition #14 a-f. August 2020

The Department of Toxic Substances Control issued the Final Hazardous Waste Facility Permit to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Site 300 in 2017. As part of the continual process to ensure waste treatment emissions are not impacting ecological receptors, LLNL analyzed soil samples in the vicinity of the Explosive Waste Treatment Facility (EWTF) Burn Units (i.e., Burn Cage and Burn Pan) and the Detonation Pad. Soil samples were analyzed by EPA Solid Waste 846 Methods for furans, explosives, metals, and semivolatile compounds. In all samples, furans, explosives, and semi-volatile organic compounds were not detected. Metals were detected at concentrations below background levels. This soil sample plan will sample the same four downwind areas of the Burn Units and the same downwind areas of the Detonation, as well as including four new sample locations. The four new locations will be located to the northeast and southwest of the Burn Units and Detonation (as shown in Figure 3). The constituents to be analyzed are in Tables 2 and 3. Perchlorate was not identified as a constituent of concern in the 2007 Soil Sampling Plan. However, for this plan, all soil samples will be analyzed for perchlorate. After completion of the sampling event, a soil sample report will be submitted to DTSC in accordance with requirements specified in the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Conditions 16 a-f. This proposed soil sampling plan will be fully implemented no later than one year after receiving DTSC approval, in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Condition 15.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Soil gas probes for monitoring trace gas messengers of microbial activity

Abstract Soil microbes vigorously produce and consume gases that reflect active soil biogeochemical processes. Soil gas measurements are therefore a powerful tool to monitor microbial activity. Yet, the majority of soil gases lack non-disruptive subsurface measurement methods at spatiotemporal scales relevant to microbial processes and soil structure. To address this need, we developed a soil gas sampling system that uses novel diffusive soil probes and sample transfer approaches for high-resolution sampling from discrete subsurface regions. Probe sampling requires transferring soil gas samples to above-ground gas analyzers where concentrations and isotopologues are measured. Obtaining representative soil gas samples has historically required balancing disruption to soil gas composition with measurement frequency and analyzer volume demand. These considerations have limited attempts to quantify trace gas spatial concentration gradients and heterogeneity at scales relevant to the soil microbiome. Here, we describe our new flexible diffusive probe sampling system integrated with a modified, reduced volume trace gas analyzer and demonstrate its application for subsurface monitoring of biogeochemical cycling of nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and its site-specific isotopologues, methane, carbon dioxide, and nitric oxide in controlled soil columns. The sampling system observed reproducible responses of soil gas concentrations to manipulations of soil nutrients and redox state, providing a new window into the microbial response to these key environmental forcings. Using site-specific N 2 O isotopologues as indicators of microbial processes, we constrain the dynamics of in situ microbial activity. Unlocking trace gas messengers of microbial activity will complement -omics approaches, challenge subsurface models, and improve understanding of soil heterogeneity to disentangle interactive processes in the subsurface biome.

04 OIL SHALES AND TAR SANDS↗
DOE OSTI2018

Temporal dynamics of CO 2 and CH 4 loss potentials in response to rapid hydrological shifts in tidal freshwater wetland soils

Earth System Models predict climate extremes that will impact regional and global hydrology. Aquatic-terrestrial transition zones like wetlands are subjected to the immediate consequence of climate change with shifts in the magnitude and dynamics of hydrologic flow. Such fluctuating hydrology can alter the nature and rate of biogeochemical transformations and significantly impact the carbon balance of the ecosystem. We tested the impacts of fluctuating hydrology and, specifically, the role of antecedent moisture conditions in determining the dominant carbon loss mechanisms in soils sampled from a tidal freshwater wetland system in the lower Columbia River, WA, USA. Our objective was to understand shifts in biogeochemical processes in response to changing soil moisture, based on soil respiration and methane production rates, and to elucidate such responses based on the observed electron acceptor and metabolite profiles under laboratory conditions. Metabolomics and biogeochemical process rates provided evidence that soil redox was the principal factor driving metabolic function. Fluctuating redox conditions altered terminal electron acceptor and donor availability and recovery strengths of their concentrations in soil such that a disproportionate release of carbon dioxide stemmed from alternative anaerobic degradation processes like sulfate and iron reduction compared to carbon loss due to methano genesis. Our results show that extended and short-term saturation created conditions conducive to increasing metabolite availability for anaerobic decomposition processes, with a significant lag in methanogenesis. In contrast,extended drying caused a cellular-level stress response and rapid recycling of alternate electron acceptors.

anaerobic respiration, tidal wetlands, methane pro↗
DOE OSTI2021

A hybrid data–model approach to map soil thickness in mountain hillslopes

Abstract. Soil thickness plays a central role in the interactions between vegetation, soils, and topography, where it controls the retention and release of water, carbon, nitrogen, and metals. However, mapping soil thickness, here defined as the mobile regolith layer, at high spatial resolution remains challenging. Here, we develop a hybrid model that combines a process-based model and empirical relationships to estimate the spatial heterogeneity of soil thickness with fine spatial resolution (0.5 m). We apply this model to two aspects of hillslopes (southwest- and northeast-facing, respectively) in the East River watershed in Colorado. Two independent measurement methods – auger and cone penetrometer – are used to sample soil thickness at 78 locations to calibrate the local value of unconstrained parameters within the hybrid model. Sensitivity analysis using the hybrid model reveals that the diffusion coefficient used in hillslope diffusion modeling has the largest sensitivity among all input parameters. In addition, our results from both sampling and modeling show that, in general, the northeast-facing hillslope has a deeper soil layer than the southwest-facing hillslope. By comparing the soil thickness estimated between a machine-learning approach and this hybrid model, the hybrid model provides higher accuracy and requires less sampling data. Modeling results further reveal that the southwest-facing hillslope has a slightly faster surface soil erosion rate and soil production rate than the northeast-facing hillslope, which suggests that the relatively less dense vegetation cover and drier surface soils on the southwest-facing slopes influence soil properties. With seven parameters in total for calibration, this hybrid model can provide a realistic soil thickness map with a relatively small amount of sampling dataset comparing to machine-learning approach. Integrating process-based modeling and statistical analysis not only provides a thorough understanding of the fundamental mechanisms for soil thickness prediction but also integrates the strengths of both statistical approaches and process-based modeling approaches.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Metagenome-assembled genomes measured at 3 depths during snowmelt period in East River, CO (March, May, and June, September 2017)

Snowmelt is a critical biogeochemical period that accounts for large nitrogen (N) export events from high-elevation watersheds. Soil microbial populations bloom and immobilize N during snowmelt, yet the population size crashes in spring, which releases a pulse of soil N. We sought to discover the N sources fueling this microbial bloom and determine the fate of N following microbial die-off. Here, focusing on the snowmelt period within a headwater catchment of the Upper Colorado River Basin (East River, CO), we deployed strain-resolved metagenomics to identify the metabolic pathways and processes that mobilize soil N during and after snowmelt. Soil metagenome samples were taken from 6 snowpits from 3 depths (0-5cm, 5-15cm, >15cm) at 4 time points during snowmelt period (March 2017, May 2017, and June 2017, September 2017) generating 48 metagenomes. We reconstructed 474 metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) across all metagenomes.All 48 metagenomes were sequenced at JGI and raw data can be found under JGI (Joint Genome Institute) GOLD Study Gs0135149. Metagenome assemblies from IMG under the same study were used for genome binning. This dataset (1) a zip file of 474 MAGs (as fasta files, Gs0135149_bins_tar.gz), (2) sample metadata file with sample IGSNs (International Generic Sample Numbers) (samples.csv), (3) bounding box coordinates for the sampled locations (Gs0135149.kml), (4) metagenome metadata file listing IMG/M (Integrated Microbial Genomes/Metagenomes) metagenome accessions linking samples to metagenomes (metagenomes.csv), (5) location metadata file (locations.csv), (6) file-level metadata file (flmd.csv) and (7) data dictionary (dd.csv) file.This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Versatile soil gas concentration and isotope monitoring: optimization and integration of novel soil gas probes with online trace gas detection

Abstract. Gas concentrations and isotopic signatures can unveil microbial metabolisms and their responses to environmental changes in soil. Currently, few methods measure in situ soil trace gases such as the products of nitrogen and carbon cycling or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that constrain microbial biochemical processes like nitrification, methanogenesis, respiration, and microbial communication. Versatile trace gas sampling systems that integrate soil probes with sensitive trace gas analyzers could fill this gap with in situ soil gas measurements that resolve spatial (centimeters) and temporal (minutes) patterns. We developed a system that integrates new porous and hydrophobic sintered polytetrafluoroethylene (sPTFE) diffusive soil gas probes that non-disruptively collect soil gas samples with a transfer system to direct gas from multiple probes to one or more central gas analyzer(s) such as laser and mass spectrometers. Here, we demonstrate the feasibility and versatility of this automated multiprobe system for soil gas measurements of isotopic ratios of nitrous oxide (δ18O, δ15N, and the 15N site preference of N2O), methane, carbon dioxide (δ13C), and VOCs. First, we used an inert silica matrix to challenge probe measurements under controlled gas conditions. By changing and controlling system flow parameters, including the probe flow rate, we optimized recovery of representative soil gas samples while reducing sampling artifacts on subsurface concentrations. Second, we used this system to provide a real-time window into the impact of environmental manipulation of irrigation and soil redox conditions on in situ N2O and VOC concentrations. Moreover, to reveal the dynamics in the stable isotope ratios of N2O (i.e., 14N14N16O, 14N15N16O, 15N14N16O, and 14N14N18O), we developed a new high-precision laser spectrometer with a reduced sample volume demand. Our integrated system – a tunable infrared laser direct absorption spectrometry (TILDAS) in parallel with Vocus proton transfer reaction mass spectrometry (PTR-MS), in line with sPTFE soil gas probes – successfully quantified isotopic signatures for N2O, CO2, and VOCs in real time as responses to changes in the dry–wetting cycle and redox conditions. Broadening the collection of trace gases that can be monitored in the subsurface is critical for monitoring biogeochemical cycles, ecosystem health, and management practices at scales relevant to the soil system.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Micro on a macroscale: relating microbial-scale soil processes to global ecosystem function

ABSTRACT Soil microorganisms play a key role in driving major biogeochemical cycles and in global responses to climate change. However, understanding and predicting the behavior and function of these microorganisms remains a grand challenge for soil ecology due in part to the microscale complexity of soils. It is becoming increasingly clear that understanding the microbial perspective is vital to accurately predicting global processes. Here, we discuss the microbial perspective including the microbial habitat as it relates to measurement and modeling of ecosystem processes. We argue that clearly defining and quantifying the size, distribution and sphere of influence of microhabitats is crucial to managing microbial activity at the ecosystem scale. This can be achieved using controlled and hierarchical sampling designs. Model microbial systems can provide key data needed to integrate microhabitats into ecosystem models, while adapting soil sampling schemes and statistical methods can allow us to collect microbially-focused data. Quantifying soil processes, like biogeochemical cycles, from a microbial perspective will allow us to more accurately predict soil functions and address long-standing unknowns in soil ecology.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Meanders as a scaling motif for understanding of floodplain soil microbiome and biogeochemical potential at the watershed scale

Abstract Background Biogeochemical exports from watersheds are modulated by the activity of microorganisms that function over micron scales. Here, we tested the hypothesis that meander-bound regions share a core microbiome and exhibit patterns of metabolic potential that broadly predict biogeochemical processes in floodplain soils along a river corridor. Results We intensively sampled the microbiomes of floodplain soils located in the upper, middle, and lower reaches of the East River, Colorado. Despite the very high microbial diversity and complexity of the soils, we reconstructed 248 quality draft genomes representative of subspecies. Approximately one third of these bacterial subspecies was detected across all three locations at similar abundance levels, and ~ 15% of species were detected in two consecutive years. Within the meander-bound floodplains, we did not detect systematic patterns of gene abundance based on sampling position relative to the river. However, across meanders, we identified a core floodplain microbiome that is enriched in capacities for aerobic respiration, aerobic CO oxidation, and thiosulfate oxidation with the formation of elemental sulfur. Given this, we conducted a transcriptomic analysis of the middle floodplain. In contrast to predictions made based on the prominence of gene inventories, the most highly transcribed genes were relatively rare amoCAB and nxrAB (for nitrification) genes, followed by genes involved in methanol and formate oxidation, and nitrogen and CO 2 fixation. Within all three meanders, low soil organic carbon correlated with high activity of genes involved in methanol, formate, sulfide, hydrogen, and ammonia oxidation, nitrite oxidoreduction, and nitrate and nitrite reduction. Overall, the results emphasize the importance of sulfur, one-carbon and nitrogen compound metabolism in soils of the riparian corridor. Conclusions The disparity between the scale of a microbial cell and the scale of a watershed currently limits the development of genomically informed predictive models describing watershed biogeochemical function. Meander-bound floodplains appear to serve as scaling motifs that predict aggregate capacities for biogeochemical transformations, providing a foundation for incorporating riparian soil microbiomes in watershed models. Widely represented genetic capacities did not predict in situ activity at one time point, but rather they define a reservoir of biogeochemical potential available as conditions change.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2017

Differences in soil biological activity by terrain types at the sub-field scale in central Iowa US

Soil microbial communities are structured by biogeochemical processes that occur at many different spatial scales, which makes soil sampling difficult. Because soil microbial communities are important in nutrient cycling and soil fertility, it is important to understand how microbial communities function within the heterogeneous soil landscape. In this study, a self-organizing map was used to determine whether landscape data can be used to characterize the distribution of microbial biomass and activity in order to provide an improved understanding of soil microbial community function. Points within a row crop field in south-central Iowa were clustered via a self-organizing map using six landscape properties into three separate landscape clusters. Twelve sampling locations per cluster were chosen for a total of 36 locations. After the soil samples were collected, the samples were then analysed for various metabolic indicators, such as nitrogen and carbon mineralization, extractable organic carbon, microbial biomass, etc. It was found that sampling locations located in the potholes and toe slope positions had significantly greater microbial biomass nitrogen and carbon, total carbon, total nitrogen and extractable organic carbon than the other two landscape position clusters, while locations located on the upslope did not differ significantly from the other landscape clusters. However, factors such as nitrate, ammonia, and nitrogen and carbon mineralization did not differ significantly across the landscape. Altogether, this research demonstrates the effectiveness of a terrain-based clustering method for guiding soil sampling of microbial communities.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Results of a Soil Flushing Treatability Test for Hanford Site Hexavalent Chromium Removal - 20446

U.S. Department of Energy contractor CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company has made significant progress remediating hexavalent chromium in groundwater near the Columbia River through the operation of pump and treat facilities and source removal activities. To mitigate risks associated with hexavalent chromium contamination, which was identified in a CERCLA interim action record of decision as the primary groundwater contaminant of concern for the 100-KR-4 Operable Unit from discharging to the Columbia River, three ion-exchange pump and treat systems were installed between 1997 and 2009. Between 2010 and 2016, operation of the K West pump and treat system, located near the former 105K West plutonium production reactor, reduced concentrations below the groundwater remediation target for hexavalent chromium. In 2016, a rebound study was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the pump and treat remedy and assess the potential for any residual hexavalent chromium sources continuing to contribute to groundwater contamination. As a result of the rebound study, a source of continued groundwater contamination was identified. To address this condition, a soil flushing treatability test was written and approved by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The test included saturating about a 1-acre area of soil with treated water with the goal of forcing the residual hexavalent chromium to groundwater where existing extraction wells could remove it for treatment, accelerating the cleanup process. In spring and summer 2019, CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company installed and began operating a shallow underground leach system to support the treatability test. Preliminary sampling data show the test was effective in removing the residual contamination. Following further evaluation and analysis from the initial test, the process will be considered for implementation elsewhere on the Hanford Site, particularly at locations where there is a known or suspected continuing contamination source in the soil column. The paper will cover the goals of the study, as well as more details about the following: - Overview of pump and treat exit strategy (using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidance); - The design and installation of the soil flushing technology in the 100-K Area; - The testing process and results of sampling data; - Post-study evaluation and potential for implementation in other locations at the Hanford Site. Innovative solutions for cleanup, such as the soil flushing technology, have resulted in substantial progress in the removal of groundwater contaminants at the Hanford Site, potentially shortening the time frame required to meet cleanup goals and resulting in significant cost savings. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

Assessing microbial community patterns under incipient soil formation from basalt

Microbial dynamics drive the biotic machinery of early soil evolution. However, integrated knowledge of microbial community establishment, functional associations, and community assembly processes in incipient soil is lacking. This study presents a novel approach of combining microbial phylogenetic profiling, functional predictions, and community assembly processes to analyze drivers of microbial community establishment in an emerging soil system. Rigorous sub-meter sampling of a basalt-soil lysimeter after two years of irrigation revealed the contrasting depth-dependent distribution patterns of soil parameters and community diversity. Phylogenetic analysis of 16S rRNA gene indicated the presence of diverse bacterial and archaeal phyla, with high relative abundance of Actinobacteria on the surface and a consistently high abundance of Proteobacteria at all depths. Predicted functional gene analysis suggested dominant autotrophy signatures, evidence of an incomplete nitrogen cycle, and predicted enzymes of iron (III) to iron (II) conversion followed by intracellular uptake, transport, and regulation. Null modeling revealed microbial community assembly predominantly governed by variable selection. The relative influence of the variable selection decreased with depth, indicating unique and relatively harsh environmental conditions near the surface and more benign conditions with depth. Additionally, high levels of dispersal influenced community composition near the center of the domain, suggesting that spatial processes interact with deterministic selection imposed by the environment. Characterizing the complexity in incipient soils can advance research insights about microbial community diversity and assembly in other incipient systems (e.g., transformation of marginal soils, or soils recovering from disturbances such as fire, erosion, intensive agricultural practices, or contamination).

Sengupta, Aditi↗